Sweeping decentralization

of educational decision-making authority:

Lessons from England and New Zealand

By Richard C. Williams, Barbara Harold ,

Jan Robertson, Geoff Southworth

The experience with decentralization in New Zealand and England illustrates that the goals of local control and accountability might be more elusive than was initially envisioned by those who designed the system, the authors suggest.

Among the solutions being offered to improve the quality of America's public schools is decentralizing decision-making authority from state educational agencies and school districts to local school sites.' The shift is being recommended in the belief that organizations will perform better if those who must implement and are affected by programs and decisions have a greater say in decision making. This development parallels a similar movement in the private sector (2)

The degree of decentralization varies among states and school districts, ranging from slightly increasing the percentage of district funds allocated to local schools for discretionary spending, to decentralizing decision making to the school principal, to establishing site-based councils that advise the principal - who retains ultimate authority for decisions. These approaches - which Priscilla Wohlstetter and Allan Odden refer to as administrative decentralization and principal control (3) - do not fundamentally change professional and school board control. We refer to them as limited models of decentralization.

The American education system, when compared to many other national systems, is already quite decentralized. The main responsibility for education rests with the states, which, in turn, have vested extensive decision-making responsibilities in local school boards. However, with the exception of a few places such as Chicago, the American system has only the trappings of true decentralization.(4) In reality, the school board and central administration retain ultimate authority over the most important decisions.

Some advocates argue that we need to decentralize further, to the local school site, if we are to garner the benefits that such an approach can provide. They urge us to adopt a system that would accomplish some or all of the following objectives:

* Devolve the ultimate responsibility for a wide range of decisions from the school board and central administration to the school-site council.

* Change site-council membership so that it consists of a majority of parents and community members and a small minority of teachers and administrators.

* Change the role of the school board and the state to assisting local site councils in implementing their own programs and decisions.

* Allow site councils greater freedom to purchase goods or obtain services for the school from government agencies and private vendors.(5)

For our purposes here, we define such changes as a sweeping decentralization of decision making. Rather than tinkering with the system by decentralizing a few decisions to professionally controlled councils, sweeping decentralization represents a fundamental shift in the decision-making structure of the school system.

We might well ask some questions. What would happen if a centralized system moved in this direction? Would it result in chaos or more efficiency? Would client interests be better served? What effect would it have on teachers and administrators? Would citizens and parents be capable of providing effective leadership? Two national education systems, England and New Zealand, have implemented just such a sweeping system, and a look at some of their experiences provides some insights into decentralization's likely effect on school sites in the U.S.

We will briefly describe the reforms that have been implemented in these two countries, identify and discuss some common challenges that they have faced when moving in this direction, and discuss lessons that American reformers might learn from these experiences.

New Zealand

During a century of education with a strongly centralized administrative structure, there had been little real change in New Zealand's system. In the 1960s there was growing community concern about the education system. In the late 1980s, discontent on the part of communities and groups that were disadvantaged by the system, such as Maori and women, led the government to decide to restructure its health, education, and other departments to achieve smaller, more effective regional units. A task force commonly referred to as the Picot Committee recommended a system that was more efficient; encouraged greater local decision making, equity, and fairness; and reallocated funds in a way that would most benefit students.

In April 1988 the decentralization of educational administration was recommended in a policy document titled Tomorrow's Schools. (6) The Education Act came into effect on 1 October 1989, when schools took over their own administration. The previous regional education boards were disestablished, and schools have since been governed by individual boards of trustees (site councils) consisting of three to five parent representatives, the principal, a staff representative, and, in secondary schools, a student representative.

England

To understand the background of the reforms in England and the context in which they were passed, one needs to recall the mid-1970s. In 1976 the chief inspector of schools gave a speech titled "The Secret Garden." Its message was that "the school curriculum needed to be opened up to the wider interests of all who had a legitimate interest in it; the government, parents, employers; not just teachers and educationists."(7)

The more than 100 Local Education Authorities (LEAs) in England and Wales provided little direct guidance on what was to be taught in schools. Curriculum content was determined mainly by school staffs, along with publishing houses, major national curriculum innovation projects, and local initiatives in specific subject areas. National inspectors' reports on national standards and school curricula and some international comparative studies began to raise concerns about the schools' quality and relevance to the modern world.

In 1988 the government passed the Education Reform Act (ERA). The ERA had two distinct parts. One half of the legislation was concerned with the national curriculum and its related assessment arrangements. It has moved the schools' curricula from being a "secret garden" inhabited only by children and teachers to a public playground in which the central government encourages, even mandates, parents and others to spend time. The second half has "much to do with the Thatcher Government's macro-philosophy that efficiency and quality are best sustained and enhanced in situations where users and customers have choice and the information and the scope to use it as they decide - in other words, where there is a market."(8) There can be other reasons for delegating financial management - such as efficiency, better value, and empowerment of teachers, trustees, and parents - but the prevailing rationale in England is for the purposes of the marketplace.

In this article we will deal mostly with the second half of the 1988 legislation, the delegation of financial management to governing boards that are predominantly composed of parents and citizens (trustees). However, it is important to understand that efforts in England to decentralize the education system by delegating funds to schools have simultaneously been accompanied by a counter flow of centralization of the curriculum, over which the government has taken control.

Under England's decentralization plan, which is called Local Management of Schools (LMS), funds are now routed to individual schools and managed by the school's principal and school trustees, to whom the principal is accountable. Generally speaking, a governing body made up of the principal, elected parents, community members, and some staff members determines how monies will be spent and makes decisions on personnel, faculty, staff development, and equipment.

Lessons to Be Learned

Both New Zealand and England have undergone sweeping decentralization of their education systems. Responsibilities previously resting with centralized educational authorities at the national and regional levels have been delegated to local schools. Further, the governance of schools has been legislated to be shared among teachers, parents, and local citizens, with the lay members outnumbering the professional staff.

In England, by a vote of the parents, a school can "opt out" of the national system. An opted-out school can receive state funds to run the school, but it is essentially freed from many of the rules and policies that govern schools remaining within the system. Both England and New Zealand, however, have a national curriculum for which the local schools are responsible. In England, accountability is to be ensured by school results on national examinations; the New Zealand model, while still mandating accountability, allows the local schools greater discretion in determining how their progress is to be identified and measured. The officers of the Education Review Office carry out effectiveness reviews and assurance audits every three years in each educational institution in New Zealand.

Four cross-national themes have emerged from the experiences of the two countries as they have moved to this more decentralized model: 1) the need for support and training, 2) the problem of lack of time, 3) the puzzle of accountability, and 4) the principal's professional and personal adjustments.

The Need for Support and Training

In many countries, one of the more persistent laments of teachers and local administrators is that the central bureau (district office, local educational authority, or national ministry) seems remote and inefficient. Local teachers and administrators wonder what "those people" do all day. One of the most important things local decision makers realize when a school moves to a decentralized system is that someone has been attending to the myriad concerns that now fall into the laps of the local school staff and governing board.

Typically, head teachers in England and New Zealand have had only minimal training and experience in management and business administration. These head teachers (we will refer to them as "principals") are suddenly responsible for a budget equivalent to millions of dollars, which covers staff salaries, building and grounds maintenance and repair, equipment, and instructional and non-instructional costs. Principals must assume the functions of accountants, maintenance managers, and personnel directors. To complicate the situation, they must make their decisions in cooperation with politically appointed trustees who also have little or no training in these areas. This is proving to be a heavy burden on everyone, especially principals. The obvious need to help local administrators deal with added responsibilities has been handled in three ways: 1) government-sponsored training and support systems, 2) self-help networks, and 3) contracting out.

Government-sponsored training and support systems

As control has been decentralized to the local schools, support systems have either been formed from previously existing bodies (the LEA in England) or have been newly set up in advance of initiating the reform (the Implementation Unit in New Zealand). In both cases, personnel who are knowledgeable and able to assist local schools provide support, and, as the new system becomes established, their authority and control gradually diminish. In New Zealand in 1989, for the first year of implementation, the School Management Development Project (SMDP) was set up in each of the six teacher colleges. Staff members from each college conducted and coordinated the support and training activities set up for school trustees, staff members, and principals in their respective regions.

Because the needs vary among the governing councils, providers of professional development in both countries have found it difficult to give the right help and support at the right time for those who need it. The principals' assessment of the adequacy of the training and support available to them has been mixed. In New Zealand, after six months, the principals' training was generally viewed as inadequate. A Principals' Implementation Task Force was established, which produced eagerly received training booklets dealing with personnel, property, and school management.

Self-help networks

In England, principals and other school staff members were encouraged to create local self-help networks - groups of principals who informally assist or advise one another on ways to manage their new responsibilities. Clearly, self-help networks are only a partial solution; systematic support is needed as well.

Contracting out

Increasingly, school principals are contracting out various tasks, such as custodial or accounting responsibilities. In some instances several schools contract jointly with a firm or an individual. In both England and New Zealand there is a growing sector of private individuals and firms competing to provide specialized services to schools.

Lack of Time

Decentralization increases the workloads of principals, administrators, and school trustees. Indeed, the complexity of the new tasks has taken up more time than anyone initially envisioned.(9) There are three broad elements that account for this increase in tasks and the time required to discharge them: 1) financial planning and management, 2) the volume of paper, and 3) the amount of consultation required.

Financial planning.

Principals, along with their trustees, now need to monitor funds, keeping a check on variables such as expenditures for heating, supplies, and substitute teachers. In England, although principals may have quickly adjusted to making financial plans, many complain that because their school budgets are set by local politicians on an annual basis, it is almost impossible for them to make long-term forecasts and plans.

Volume of paper

Principals must deal with countless agencies, including private advertisers, retailers, and consultants. The introduction of the national curriculum has also greatly increased the number of reports and policy dicta that must be read. There never seems to be enough time to read all the official documents, which are constantly being altered. In New Zealand this phenomenon is commonly referred to as a "paper war."(10)

Consultation required

Principals must now work closely with their trustees, which requires attending more and longer meetings. The education system is now run by volunteers taking on roles previously played by full-time, paid personnel of the regional education boards and LEAs. Also of importance is the attitude of the trustees toward their responsibilities. Trustees who view themselves as "watchdogs" and trust the principal to run the school unless there is some reason to be concerned take less time than trustees who see themselves as "bosses" elected to run the school on behalf of the parents.

The Problem of Accountability

In both England and New Zealand, the decentralization to local schools has developed within the constraints of national policy frameworks. New Zealand uses a "charter" between the schools and the government that sets out the educational objectives for the schools under the umbrella of the national curriculum framework. An Education Review Office conducts reviews and reports on the extent to which schools are achieving the goals set forth in their charters. The school boards of trustees are required to report regularly to their communities on the charter objectives and how well they are being achieved. In England, similar structures exist. The national curriculum provides a framework of entitlement for each pupil. An Office of Standards in Education ensures that all schools are inspected every four years by teams of registered inspectors who report to the trustees. Trustees formally report once a year to the parents about the school and its achievements.

Undoubtedly, many of the decisions that school councils make will be sound and sensible. There is a downside to this decentralization movement, however. Eric Bolton, a former senior chief inspector of schools, stated succinctly, "It is surely a triumph of hope over experience to expect that such self-interested, isolated, fragmented decisions, made in thousands of separate institutions, will add up to a sensible, effective, and efficient national school system."(11)

In England, many valuable activities are already suffering. Orchestras and other music groups, drama programs, and visual arts centers, which brought together pupils of similar abilities or needs, were organized at a level over and above the individual school. The list is not confined to the arts; centers for pupils with special needs also fall into this category. A counterbalance of some "higher" authority is needed that will coordinate certain kinds of educational activities that are more cost-effective when more centrally organized.

While New Zealand has not experienced the same problems, there has been concern that personnel and services such as teacher/librarians, museum education officers, and special education - all previously funded centrally - will be affected. Clearly, the devolution of funds to local sites needs to be handled with care; otherwise, some valuable resources and provisions will be lost.

The Changing Role of the Principal

The role of the principal in site-based management obviously becomes more varied and complex. The power to make autonomous decisions on matters closely related to the schools' problems and welfare is valued by the principals in New Zealand and England and has led to innovative programs and practices over the past four years. The freedom to be able to make decisions and to implement change at the local level without a lot of central bureaucratic interference has been appreciated and is an acknowledged benefit of the education reforms in both countries. However, this responsibility also places further demands on principals.

In both New Zealand and England, as in the U.S., principals have traditionally sought to balance educational leadership and organizational management. The reforms have forced educational leaders to pick up many more managerial responsibilities. The time required for these new duties has varied to some degree, depending on the principals' expertise, but the complexity of the management role has usually severely cut into the time available to principals to act as educational leaders in staff and school development.

It is possible to argue that the perception of dual roles is in some ways a false dichotomy and that the two functions can be accommodated and integrated.(12) However, this role integration appears to be essentially an academic resolution of the inherent tensions between the two roles. Principals themselves apparently see the two functions as separate parts of their work, and some appear to have a preference for one over the other.

In England, Geoff Southworth found that some principals appeared to regard their educational leadership not as a role but as an occupation identified with teaching and learning and educational beliefs. Being a principal was not a managerial role for them. For these educational -leadership-oriented principals, school management was a means to an end; now, they fear that the managerial role will become an end in itself, taking them away from what they see as their reason for being a principal. As one principal said, "LMS has turned the role of the principal upside down."(13)

In her study in New Zealand, Jan Robertson found that many of the principals felt that "Nobody knows the things beyond the call of duty that a principal does." One urban primary principal stated a concern that was felt by all in the group: "My problem is that there are so many things that are drawing me out all the time to do other things instead of my being able to stay in the school and concentrate on what I want to do."(14)

Occupying a position at the interface of staff, school-site council, and community has greatly increased principals' stress levels. The situation needs to be closely watched. Research indicates that the principal is a significant factor in the school's effectiveness and development. Therefore, if decentralization reduces the professional leadership of the principal, it may inhibit the effectiveness of the school.

Those who have been directly involved in trying to make decentralization work at the school-site level have commented on the strain they have experienced and the problems they have encountered. Yet it is interesting to note that, when given the choice, many would rather press on with the new system than return to the previous, more centralized system. With all its challenges, they seem to prefer the choices and autonomy that the new system provides over the limitations that are inherent in complex bureaucracies.

Implications for the U.S. Education System

American school districts' plans to decentralize decision making from the central administration to local school sites are, with the exception of the Chicago plan, not as sweeping as those we have described in England and New Zealand. Typically, when American school districts decentralize, they shift some budgetary responsibilities and decision-making authority to the local school site. Some plans require the schools to appoint or elect school-site councils that consist of teachers, parents, citizens, and occasionally students. However, these site councils typically are not composed of a majority of parents and citizens, and their decision-making authority is quite limited, often to an advisory role.

There are reinvention advocates in the United States who consider the current decentralization situation to be merely the beginning stages of a system that will ultimately resemble the more sweeping approaches of England and New Zealand. If we do move toward a more complete decentralization to local school sites, what can be learned from these years of experience in New Zealand and England that might inform our policy decisions? We consider three lessons from the New Zealand and England models: the Catch-22 of empowerment, the unbounded need for training, and the cloud of accountability.

The Catch-22 of empowerment

Neighborhoods and attendance areas in school districts - especially in large districts - often differ considerably. Decentralization advocates argue that the students and parents in local schools are best served if their programs are responsive to the unique character and needs of their clients.

They consider central school bureaucracies with broad general policies and procedures to be incapable of responding adequately to widely differing local needs. Decentralizing decision making to the local school site empowers the school principal, staff members, parents, and citizens to respond to local needs.

In New Zealand and England, decentralization has resulted in a paradox. When the schools are given more autonomy over a wide range of activities (from curriculum and instruction, to the physical plant and facilities, to budget and personnel - functions previously handled by a central administrative unit), it turns out that school administrators do not have the training, expertise, or, most important, the time to deal with all these matters. The attention of the designated decision makers is divided among a wide range of activities and demands. Further, many parents and teachers do not have the background, time, or inclination to delve into the details of problems that confront the school. Principals are drawn away from their responsibility to provide leadership to the school's instructional program; teachers spend an inordinate amount of time on non-instructional matters for which they have neither training nor interest. As a result, the school - finally given greater discretion over its own destiny - finds it extremely difficult to solve practical problems and get on to more fundamental curricular and instructional matters.

Decentralizing decision making to the local school site will not result in more responsiveness to local needs unless the schools have the capacity to respond. This capacity might be provided in at least three ways:

* a central administrative unit at the district level might provide selected services to the schools,

* schools might be given resources sufficient to allow the school-site councils time to deal adequately with the challenges they face, or

* schools might be given the resources and the freedom to purchase needed services from the private sector.

An unbounded need for training

When school principals, teachers, parents, and citizens are delegated responsibility for decision making, they must understand the matters about which they are to make decisions, appreciate the workings of complex organizations, and have the skills to participate in the decision-making process. Knowledge, understanding, patience, and persistence are required to make decisions about such diverse matters as assessing the instructional program, planning programs, determining disciplinary and other policies, ensuring equity to all students, and dispersing limited resources.

In New Zealand and England, principals typically have had limited formal training in administration, and teachers and parents have had virtually none. In the U.S., principals have considerable training and experience in administering a school within a centralized system. Teachers do have some training in curriculum and instruction, but few have a comprehensive understanding of the workings of a school as a complex organization, Parents and citizens generally have very limited knowledge of these matters.

In England and New Zealand, the delegation of decision-making authority to site councils resulted in a massive and apparently unanticipated demand for in-service training. The need for training varied considerably across the spectrum of councils, depending on the challenges they faced and the makeup of the council. And, considering the turnover of membership on councils, the need for training will be unending.

In the U.S., the same in-service training needs should be anticipated. While American administrators have more initial training in these matters, they generally have limited experience with the kind of collaborative decision making required by this shift in responsibility. Some teachers, through the teacher leadership movement, have acquired such skills and knowledge, but many more need training. Parents and citizens will generally need extensive training.

Who will provide this in-service training? In New Zealand it was provided by a network of regional colleges. In England virtually no provision was made for such training. Both countries have reported that a lack of adequate in-service training is a continuing stumbling block in implementing the school reform program. In the U.S. some school districts have provided orientations for site-council members, and many principals have worked to develop their councils' skills and understandings. However, centralized district offices with diminished resources will not have the capacity to provide this service. Perhaps this need will be filled by local universities, regional educational agencies, principal centers, or private consultants.

Policies that involve any substantial movement toward de-centralizing decision making to local sites must include a recognition of this need for in-service training and must provide the resources necessary to develop thoughtful, informed, and competent school-site council members. Without adequate initial and continuing training, the potential benefits of this organizational structure will not be realized.

The cloud of accountability.

 One of the heralded benefits of decentralizing decision making to the local school site is that accountability for the school's performance can be more clearly affixed. Because the school has been allocated additional resources and the clear authority to determine and operate its school program, it should be much easier to determine the causal relationship between the school's program and functioning and the students' performance on identified outcome measures. However, the experience in New Zealand and England indicates that decentralization to local school sites has in some ways clouded, rather than clarified, the accountability question.

One problem that resulted when dividing up the central budget and dispersing it to local school sites was that the district and the schools lost the benefits of economy of scale - that is, a larger organization generally has the purchasing power to demand a better unit price from the sales source. This applies, for example, to equipment, instructional materials, paper, and cleaning supplies. With parceled-out funds, it also becomes more difficult to provide some kinds of programs and resources in individual schools. As illustrated in New Zealand and England, museums, central libraries with significant collections, large-scale musical or artistic programs, and comprehensive in-service training programs are difficult and expensive to maintain separately in each individual school. These facilities require resources that are beyond the reach of individual schools - resources that have typically been provided by a central administrative agency. Who is to be accountable for providing these valued programs and resources?

A second problem is determining to whom the school is accountable. The movement to local accountability raises afresh the question of whom the school serves. Obviously, schools serve the enrolled students and their parents; however, public schools also serve the local community and the nation. As became apparent in England, a set of individual schools each determining its own program and priorities to fit its own interests is not likely to result in a national education system designed to prepare the students, and thereby the nation, for life in the 21st century. In some instances, the goals of the local school might be in conflict with national goals, or they might not address broad societal needs.

How can this tension between the interests of the nation and those of the individual schools be resolved? England's answer has been to develop a national curriculum and examination system through which all schools are held accountable. In theory, the nation sets the goals and determines how to measure the outcomes. The schools are given the freedom to determine how to meet those outcomes and are held accountable for the results. This idea has proved difficult to implement. Recently, because of its complexity and expense, the government has attempted to reduce the scale of the national curriculum and the scope of the national testing program. New Zealand has implemented a less centralized system that includes a national curriculum but not a national testing system. However, as the new curriculum framework is implemented, a new monitoring system of national standards will be introduced. Each school has greater autonomy in determining its educational goals and the ways that the school's progress will be measured. In both systems, the accountability issue has been addressed, but the challenge of responding to community and national accountability issues remains largely unresolved.

In the U.S., with responsibility for education resting in each of the 50 states and thousands of school districts, the accountability issue would seem even more vexing. Attempts to develop or coordinate a national standards and assessment program that might anchor an accountability system are under way. However, considering the nation's vastness and diversity, the complexity of the task, and the looming costs, the likelihood of developing a system that would meet the needs of state and national accountability seems slim at best.

Even if a clear accountability system can be developed, the question remains: Who will be responsible if the school is judged unsuccessful? Asked another way, Who will have the authority and responsibility for determining the school's goals and objectives and the responsibility for implementing the school's program? And who will meet the legal and financial obligations that might arise if the governing board acts irresponsibly? The standard answer to questions about the role of lay school boards is that boards have general policy responsibilities and superintendents are responsible for implementing a program to accomplish those policy goals. Anyone acquainted with the workings of school boards knows that the line between the two functions is very fuzzy and often breached. Some school board members become deeply involved in micromanaging school districts. School-site councils with voting memberships that encompass both the professional staff and the lay public would seem to blur even further the question of who is accountable for the schools' performance and obligations.

In summary, sweeping decentralization of educational decision making from the central administration to the local school site is advocated because it provides the school staff, parents, and local citizens an opportunity to develop a school that is responsive to local needs, and it more clearly assigns accountability if the school does not meet agreed-upon standards. The experience in New Zealand and England, however, illustrates that these goals of local control and accountability might be more elusive than was initially envisioned by those who designed the system. Those who advocate a more sweeping or radical approach, similar to the programs that have been introduced in New Zealand and England, must be prepared to address the challenges that others have encountered.

References

1. Paul T. Hill and Josephine Bonan, Decentralization and Accountability in Public Education (Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation, 1991), p. 9.

2. David Osbourne and Ted Gaebler, Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit Is Transforming the Public Sector (New York: Addison-Wesley, 1992).

3. Priscilla Wohlstetter and Allan Odden, "Rethinking School-Based Management Policy and Research," Educational Administration Quarterly, November 1992, pp. 529-49.

4. G. Alfred Hess, Jr., School Restructuring, Chicago Style (Newbury Park, Ill.: Corwin, 1991), chap. 9; and Richard F. Elmore, "Models of Restructuring Schools," paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, 1988.

5. For a source of various perspectives on decentralization, see Paul T. Hill, Reinventing Public Education (Seattle: Institute for Education and Training and the Institute for Public Policy and Management, University of Washington, report #DRU-690IET/LE/GGF, April 1994).

6. David Lange, Tomorrow's Schools (Wellington, New Zealand: Government Printer, 1988).

7. Eric Bolton, "Imaginary Gardens with Real Toads," in Clyde Chitty and Brian Simons, eds., Education Answers Back (London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1993), p. 3.

8. Ibid., p. 5.

9. Robin McConnell and Richard Jefferies, "Report No. 4: Monitoring Today's Schools Research Project," in David Mitchell, ed., The First Year: Tomorrow's Schools. as Perceived by Members of the Boards of Trustees (Hamilton, New Zealand: University of Waikato, 1991).

10. Cathy Wylie, "Volunteers and Conscripts in the Paper War," Public Sector, vol. 13, no. 4, 1990, pp. 14-15.

11. Bolton, p. 8.

12. Meredydd Hughes, "Leadership in Professionally Staffed Organisations," in idem et al., eds., Managing Education: The System and the Institution (London: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1985), pp. 262-90.

13. Geoff Southworth, "Primary School Headship: An Analysis Derived from an Ethnographic Case Study of One Headteacher's Work" (Doctoral dissertation, University of East Anglia, England, 1993), p. 317.

14. Jan M. Robertson, "Developing Educational Leadership" (Master's thesis, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand, 1991), p. 142.

RICHARD C. WILLIAMS is a professor in the College of Education, University of Washington, Seattle. BARBARA HAROLD is a senior lecturer in the School of Education, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand, where JAN ROBERTSON is a senior lecturer and director of the Educational Leadership Centre. GEOFF SOUTH-WORTH is a senior lecturer in the Institute of Education, University of Cambridge, England.